Translating the international scientific spinal cord injury exercise guidelines into community and clinical practice guidelines: a Canadian evidence-informed resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Knowledge translation (KT) study. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how to use systematic, community-engaged methods to (1) translate the international scientific spinal cord injury (SCI) exercise guidelines into community and clinical practice guidelines, and (2) develop supporting resources. SETTING: Canada. METHODS: An expert panel of SCI researchers and stakeholders translated the guidelines and developed a supporting resource, using a KT process guided by an adapted version of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Pilot tests with end-users were conducted throughout. RESULTS: The panel recommended (1) the two scientific exercise guidelines be combined and presented in a single message titled "The Canadian SCI physical activity guidelines"; (2) development of an online supporting resource, with educational and motivational information presented in "layers" to address the needs and preferences of diverse end-users. The top layer presents and explains the Canadian SCI physical activity guidelines. The deeper layers include information on benefits, overcoming barriers, activity examples, safety tips, and links to existing resources. Interviews with adults with SCI (n = 8) and survey-data from end-users (n = 90) showed that the guidelines and supporting resource were perceived as clear, useful, and appropriate. CONCLUSION: Using community-engaged methods, the two scientific SCI exercise guidelines were combined into one single physical activity guideline message. This KT process provides a template for groups in other countries to translate the scientific SCI exercise guidelines to their local settings using a similar systematic, community-engaged approach. SPONSORSHIP: Rick Hansen Institute; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".